On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Tom Lord wrote:
>
> > From: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > >The lock/unlock pattern can solve it -- not in the general case but in
> > >a useful way -- and is quite portable.
>
> > This is true -- but impossible within the context of the current draft of
> > the SRFI because there is no call to hang the unlock() method on.
>
>I don't understand. The unlock() should be an explicit part of the
>FFI (when/if r/w-sharing-semantics string extraction is added).
Right. My original point was that r/w sharing semantics were unsupportable
under the current draft (ie, without an unlock() call) of the SRFI and we
needed to warn application developers of this fact.
Bear